Verizon Bases $5 Fee To Not Publish Your Phone Number On 'Systems and IT' Costs

coondoggie writes "Let's say that for whatever reason, you'd rather your telephone number not be published. If you are a Verizon customer, that privacy privilege will cost you $5 a month. And how does Verizon justify such a significant fee for such an insignificant service? 'The cost charged to offer unlisted phone numbers is chiefly systems and IT based,' a media relations spokesman for the company tells Network World. (Asking the same question of online customer service elicited a predictably unenlightening response.) Sixty dollars a year to keep an unpublished number unpublished? Does that seem plausible?"

It's based on system design

[Anonymous Coward]

Their system is design to make money for them while annoying you. I'd say it is working.

Welp at least

[Dyinobal]

Welp at least I can go to one of the many other carriers, because there is no way they would implement such a fee themselves! I'm glad competition is so fierce between wireless carriers, I always feel like I'm getting a great deal.

LIfe's Great Mysteries

[paleo2002]

Similar to the "convenience fees" many utilities, companies, and government agencies charge to conduct business via their web sites. Why does it cost money to NOT publish my phone number? Why does it cost money to renew my car registration online via an automated system instead of at a building that costs rent and overhead with a human employee? Why does it cost my bank $3 a page to mail me copies of old bank statements (and why can't they send me pdf's)?

Perhaps we've hit upon a new revenue stream. We could call it "Unservice" or "Negative Features".

Re:It's true, folks!

[Samantha Wright]

Yes!

I mean... no?

Re:It's true, folks!

[TheGratefulNet]

[blonde voice] "updating databases is hard!" [/blonde voice]

Doesn't Cost Me Anything

[Greyfox]

But then my middle name is '; drop table subscribers;

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Sounds reasonable to me

[alexander_686]

The probelm is not the WHERE clause, it's the NULLs. With unlisted numbers the displayed phone number has to be a null. Have you ever gone down to Radio Shack to pick up a bukcet of nulls? Now, I now that Verzion buys them in bulk, but still.

Re:Justification

[Holi]

No, to quote one of the funniest ladies of all time,
" You see, this phone system consists of a multibillion-dollar matrix of space age technology that is so sophisticated -- even we can't handle it. But that's your problem, isn't it? So, the next time you complain about your phone service, why don't you try using two Dixie cups with a string? We don't care. We don't have to. We're the Phone Company. "

Re:Sounds reasonable to me

[LurkerXXX]

They must not be using Oracle. With Oracle, nulls are the same as empty values. That's why Oracle databases are so much lighter to carry around than other databases.

Re:Revenue Stream

[Darinbob]

Well what they could have done is have a $5 fee to have an unlisted number as one option, and a different $5 fee if do you want your number listed.

Re:Sixty Dollars for one line of code ..

[Swave An deBwoner]

And there's a bug in your code. Now we have to hire a consultant to fix it!

``Though a program be but three lines long, someday it will have to be maintained.'' [canonical.org]

Re:It's true, folks!

[uvajed_ekil]

But this is about not updating a database once data has been entered once. NOT updating is so easy I do it constantly.